Why do so few pros play boutique guitars?

[Stringswinger]

Wes and Joe played them and Kenny had a Super 400. For me this is main trunk of the tree. I find these guitars quite comfortable to play. Others may not including you……get a boutique guitar made exactly like you need. Feedback never been a real problem for me but I don’t play in situations that might tend to that more.

+1

I have played thousands of jazz (and a few rock) gigs with a Gibson ES-175. Real world paid gigs.

If that model was good enough for Joe Pass, Herb Ellis, Jim Hall, Pat Metheny, Jonathan Kreisberg, Wes Montgomery (before his L-5's), Kenny Burrell (before his Super 400's), Howard Roberts and Steve Howe, it is good enough for me. Feedback has rarely been an issue and I find them quite comfy.

[ThatRhythmMan]

+1

I have played thousands of jazz (and a few rock) gigs with a Gibson ES-175. Real world paid gigs.

If that model was good enough for Joe Pass, Herb Ellis, Jim Hall, Pat Metheny, Jonathan Kreisberg, Wes Montgomery (before his L-5's), Kenny Burrell (before his Super 400's), Howard Roberts and Steve Howe, it is good enough for me. Feedback has rarely been an issue and I find them quite comfy.

If Steve Howe managed his ES-175 so well on stage with Chris Squire, Rick Wakeman, and Bill Bruford on stage with him playing at arena levels, it is certainly a manageable guitar.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GuyBoden]

I think that you quickly become aware that feedback is a problem with archtop guitars at loud volume and so adapt your playing position. Moving the guitar's body away from the amp or feedback location in cramped venues.

[Christian Miller]

I’m always puzzled about people saying the es175 has feedback problems. Clearly I need to play louder!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Christian Miller]

The "it's just a tool" line always makes me laugh,especially if you paid 5K or more for that guitar.Hate to tell them but there are a lot cheaper tools to get the job done.I see that attitude more among rock,blues guys who like the mojo of a beat up guitar or as i heard someone once call it the Stevie Ray Vaughn syndrone.

Professional equipment usually costs quite a bit of money. Think of professional photography equipment for example.

Just because it’s important and valuable (and necessary for one’s job) doesn’t mean that it’s anything more than a tool. A great photographer can obviously take great photos with a phone camera, but that doesn’t mean a high end SLR isn’t worth the money to that person. The difference may get more subtle as you pay more, but they are still differences.

I tend to have that relationship with my guitars. They are lovely things but ultimately I evaluate them of their ability to do the job I want. They are just tools.

I mean of course you could do the job with a Harley Benton telecaster ( I love those things, seriously). But an archtop does sound different. If you want a good archtop you are dealing with something that takes a lot of skilled labour to make.

Besides most guitars go for chump change compared to professional orchestral instruments…

That said pros don’t always use the very high end stuff….

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Archie]

Wes and Joe played them and Kenny had a Super 400. For me this is main trunk of the tree. I find these guitars quite comfortable to play. Others may not including you……get a boutique guitar made exactly like you need. Feedback never been a real problem for me but I don’t play in situations that might tend to that more.

I agree and disagree.

The guitars you mentioned are from a bygone era. Pass and Hall moved away from the 175 almost as soon as something ‘better' came along. In their case, a more conformable, D’Aquisto. And that wasn’t under endorsement. We can all like classic cars but agree that power steering and air conditioning is preferable on a daily basis.
In this age, there are so many more practical options than back then. You could argue that would naturally dilute the number of players using a 175, or players find the 175 iconic but prefer to play something else?

I've got a really nice ES-165 that sounds exactly like you'd want a 165/75 to sound; but if you play a D’Aqiuosto style 16” for any time and then play the 165, the 165 is just uncomfortable. It sounds better but I find myself gravitating towards the thinner body.

I think the D’Aquisto style has actually been the most successful 16” body style and is far more popular than the ES-175 buy a significant amount.

[Archie]

+1

I have played thousands of jazz (and a few rock) gigs with a Gibson ES-175. Real world paid gigs.

If that model was good enough for Joe Pass, Herb Ellis, Jim Hall, Pat Metheny, Jonathan Kreisberg, Wes Montgomery (before his L-5's), Kenny Burrell (before his Super 400's), Howard Roberts and Steve Howe, it is good enough for me. Feedback has rarely been an issue and I find them quite comfy.

About 75% of the players you mentioned, moved away to a smaller body or D’Aquisto style. Imo people who still play a 175, are like people who still drive classic cars. I respect it, you’re doing what you want, playing what you love but you're making sacrifices to do so.

I don't think there’s any getting away from the fact that the 175 is a cheap plywood box, no matter how many beautiful paper thin decorative veneers ‘Gibson’ put on it.
I just can’t get over how crude the necks are.
I’m not debating their iconic status but this isn’t the 1950’s.

Look at the heel on these 175’s! You could carve another guitar out of that. I’ll accept that the neck and heel carves do vary.

[Christian Miller]

The reason high end cameras cost more is because they usually have technology, that is on the leading edge. The desire for this tech is driven mostly by sports photographers who need higher fps, better autofocus etc. If you wanted a good studio camera, you could have stoped at the SLR stage with a NIkon D850 etc..

If you want to cross over into Hasselblad, that is a somewhat different issue. Leica’s on the other hand seem mostly to be a well marketed luxury goods item; a ‘lifestyle’ choice.

It was still the case when cameras were analog. Quality of the optics and so on.

Your ear gets more refined with instruments. That’s the problem. Especially anything with an acoustic element. I want a modern voiced carved archtop, because those things don’t sound like my es175. I’d have to be prepared to part with thousands to get one (unless I go Eastman or something, which I find to be quite woolly sounding guitars.)

But despite the relationships we develop with our instruments they are ultimately tools. My guitars come out when I practice or play a gig.

Now I don’t doubt that there’s a sector of the guitar market that is overvalued. For example, Peter B bought his Zeidler when he was still an obscure maker. The prices those instruments command today are largely due to him. So musicians will always be looking for a high quality instrument for a reasonable price. We don’t have buckets of money. But we are prepared to pay for something good. And some things just cost a lot of money.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GuyBoden]

Your ear gets more refined with instruments. That’s the problem. Especially anything with an acoustic element. I want a modern voiced carved archtop, because those things don’t sound like my es175. I’d have to be prepared to part with thousands to get one (unless I go Eastman or something, which I find to be quite woolly sounding guitars.)

I play modern type guitars myself, but to my ears, your 175 guitar sound and playing is superb, the epitome of the classic 1950-60's Jazz guitar tone. Resist temptation, don't change a thing.

Joe Pass' "For Django" album is my benchmark for that classic Jazz guitar tone.

[Christian Miller]

The 175 does a thing and it’s a great thing


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[voyage]

unless I go Eastman or something, which I find to be quite woolly sounding guitars.

Can you say more about what you view as "woolly"? Or contrast with something not "woolly"?

[Christian Miller]

Can you say more about what you view as "woolly"? Or contrast with something not "woolly"?

Yeah I find the amplified sound a bit bass heavy and lacking in defined mid range. More for their floating pup guitars tbf.

One thing Gibson do really well (at least in the two I own) is building in a sort of EQ hump at around 800hz. It makes the guitars sound a bit nasal unplugged, but when you plug them in and play with a band they always cut through. Sometimes a bit too much! A lot depends on getting the right amp.

Eastmans to my ears are voiced a lot more flat. Acoustically they sound almost like flattop guitars. They are also much more responsive acoustically (even the laminate set pup models) than most modern Gibsons, which can be a bug or a feature depending, but this carries through into their amplified tone.

Modern archtop luthiers design their instruments based on how the guitar works with the amp, rather than making as a purely acoustic instrument that is then amplified, as I understand it (although Trenier will build you a school cannon if you want it.)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ThatRhythmMan]

I agree and disagree.

The guitars you mentioned are from a bygone era. Pass and Hall moved away from the 175 almost as soon as something ‘better' came along. In their case, a more conformable, D’Aquisto. And that wasn’t under endorsement. We can all like classic cars but agree that power steering and air conditioning is preferable on a daily basis.
In this age, there are so many more practical options than back then. You could argue that would naturally dilute the number of players using a 175, or players find the 175 iconic but prefer to play something else?

I've got a really nice ES-165 that sounds exactly like you'd want a 165/75 to sound; but if you play a D’Aqiuosto style 16” for any time and then play the 165, the 165 is just uncomfortable. It sounds better but I find myself gravitating towards the thinner body.

I think the D’Aquisto style has actually been the most successful 16” body style and is far more popular than the ES-175 buy a significant amount.

I’m not even sure what you’re talking about in many respects here.

First, Joe Pass continued to often play his custom thinner ES-175 right up to the end of his life. He didn’t “move away”. Herb Ellis only stopped playing his ES-175 publicly during a stint with an exclusive Aria contract, and went straight back to it afterward.

I also am not quite sure what you mean by D’Aquisto style 16”. Could you share some examples?

Lastly, what do you mean by “successful” and “popular”. I find it hard to imagine any archtop that has been more of either of those descriptors than the 70 straight year in production ES-175.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[nyc chaz]

Professional equipment usually costs quite a bit of money. Think of professional photography equipment for example.

Just because it’s important and valuable (and necessary for one’s job) doesn’t mean that it’s anything more than a tool. A great photographer can obviously take great photos with a phone camera, but that doesn’t mean a high end SLR isn’t worth the money to that person. The difference may get more subtle as you pay more, but they are still differences.

I tend to have that relationship with my guitars. They are lovely things but ultimately I evaluate them of their ability to do the job I want. They are just tools.

I mean of course you could do the job with a Harley Benton telecaster ( I love those things, seriously). But an archtop does sound different. If you want a good archtop you are dealing with something that takes a lot of skilled labour to make.

Besides most guitars go for chump change compared to professional orchestral instruments…

That said pros don’t always use the very high end stuff….

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So when guys come on this forum and post their 5 to 10K new guitar so people can ooh and aah about how beautiful it is ,they view their new acquisition as just a tool.I don't think so.Next new Campellone that gets posted i'll just comment "it's just a tool" and see how well that is received.

[Stringswinger]

Joe Pass' "For Django" album is my benchmark for that classic Jazz guitar tone.

Mine too.

[voyage]

Nobody's yet mentioned my exemplar of fine Jazz playing, Joe Diorio. I've never seen him play anything but that one 175.

I haven't played one in a long time, but as I recalled the fretboard is flat compared to an L-5. It is a very different feel for playing.

[voyage]

Nobody's yet mentioned my exemplar of fine Jazz playing, Joe Diorio. I've never seen him play anything but that one 175.

I haven't played one in a long time, but as I recall the fretboard is flat compared to an L-5. It is a very different feel for playing. More like a classical.

[jazzshrink]

Nobody's yet mentioned my exemplar of fine Jazz playing, Joe Diorio. I've never seen him play anything but that one 175...

I think you're 99% correct. I did find this LP cover with a Benedetto.

[GuyBoden]

Joe Diorio playing an El Ray.

[Christian Miller]

So when guys come on this forum and post their 5 to 10K new guitar so people can ooh and aah about how beautiful it is ,they view their new acquisition as just a tool.I don't think so.Next new Campellone that gets posted i'll just comment "it's just a tool" and see how well that is received.

As you know, for a lot of people on the forum it is not the tool of their trade. And I don’t judge people for buying and appreciating nice things. They have a different relationship. The guitar for them represents leisure time and the outlay of a lot of money for something inessential that they love. It’s a different thing.

Hence all this stuff about ‘would I play this guitar on a gig?’ honestly, while I know some pro players who won’t take their vintage guitars on the tube like I do, I think the idea of not playing a guitar on a gig would be weird - unless it had very specific sentimental value (I know some examples on JGO). They are tools for making music. (Maybe you could justify having studio only guitars if you had enough space and you were doing lots of recording.)

I’ve posted pics of my guitars occasionally. They are nice objects. Of course.

And yet if you said that to me, I’d agree with you. I think most players would.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[voyage]

I think you're 99% correct. I did find this LP cover with a Benedetto.

I'd like to have that record. Wonder how long it took you to find that?

[ccroft]

I also am not quite sure what you mean by D’Aquisto style 16”. Could you share some examples?

I guess he's talking about Borys B-120, Manzer BlueNote, the Westvilles, the Sadowskys, a Trenier or two, and such. Lightly built lams with around 2 3/4" depth.

On the tool thing: we have a $50K table saw in the shop I manage. Could we build with a less expensive saw? Of course! We have, and we do when the big saw is in use. The Altendorf is much more efficient, quieter, easier on the body, smoother running and looks better too. This is actually quite important for client tours: 'ooooh... what is THAT?!"

[FourOnSix]

Nobody's yet mentioned my exemplar of fine Jazz playing, Joe Diorio. I've never seen him play anything but that one 175.

Not so. You did, in your duplicate post above.

[marcwhy]

Nobody's yet mentioned my exemplar of fine Jazz playing, Joe Diorio. I've never seen him play anything but that one 175.

I haven't played one in a long time, but as I recalled the fretboard is flat compared to an L-5. It is a very different feel for playing.

Joe played L-4s, too (which are "fancy" 175s, sort of).

[nyc chaz]

As you know, for a lot of people on the forum it is not the tool of their trade. And I don’t judge people for buying and appreciating nice things. They have a different relationship. The guitar for them represents leisure time and the outlay of a lot of money for something inessential that they love. It’s a different thing.

Hence all this stuff about ‘would I play this guitar on a gig?’ honestly, while I know some pro players who won’t take their vintage guitars on the tube like I do, I think the idea of not playing a guitar on a gig would be weird - unless it had very specific sentimental value (I know some examples on JGO). They are tools for making music. (Maybe you could justify having studio only guitars if you had enough space and you were doing lots of recording.)

I’ve posted pics of my guitars occasionally. They are nice objects. Of course.

And yet if you said that to me, I’d agree with you. I think most players would.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There's a difference saying about guitars 'it's a tool" and 'it's just a tool'.Of course it's a tool but when you spend the kind of money a lot of guys do on a guitar,it's not just a tool but a work of art they own or maybe even a status symbol for some.I don't know anybody puffing their chest out about their new hammer or leaf blower.